RE: [CentOS] XFS module

Heitor Augusto M Cardozo wrote: > Hi, > > Im using XFS on production server and waiting the release of > kernel-module-xfs-2.6.9-55.0.2 on CentOSPlus Repository to update. Any > idea of release date? > > Thanks. I am in the same boat. I cannot find an rpm that correlates to the 2.6.9-55.0.2 kern

RE: [CentOS] XFS module

>> >> I am in the same boat. I cannot find an rpm that correlates to the >> 2.6.9-55.0.2 kernel. I am running this on an x86_64 architecture. >> >> Alex > > It's this guy? > > kmod-xfs-0.4-1.el4.2.6.9_55.0.2.EL.x86_64.rpm > I have been using the kernel-module-xfs rpm. Did I miss a change to

RE: [CentOS] XFS module

> It's this guy? > > kmod-xfs-0.4-1.el4.2.6.9_55.0.2.EL.x86_64.rpm > If this is the replacement (I'm searching list archives but can't seem to find any reference) then how do I load it. I have the yum priorities plugin and it still tries to load the plus kernel (which I'm not using). Do I load

RE: [CentOS] sendmail and cups gets installed although not chosen inkickstart file

>How can I find out what forced them (and probably many other unwanted >packages) on the installation? >I thought maybe "rpm -q --whatrequires sendmail" would tell me, but it >doesn't. Nothing requires it. Same for cups. So, why did it get installed? I usually do a rpm -q --provides and have it

[CentOS] yum problem after last kernel

Hello all, I've been googling and haven't found an answer. I have a Centos 4.6 box that is having an issue since the last yum update. The nss_ldap and kernel packages were the only packages installed/updated. When I try to run yum I now receive: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# yum update There was a problem

RE: [CentOS] yum problem after last kernel (SOLVED)

>Hello all, I've been googling and haven't found an answer. I have a >Centos 4.6 box that is having an issue since the last yum update. The >nss_ldap and kernel packages were the only packages installed/updated. >When I try to run yum I now receive: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# yum update >There was a p

Re: [CentOS] WAS//security compliance vs. old software versions

On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 17:44 -0400, John Hinton wrote: > > On 7/6/2010 5:34 PM, Whit Blauvelt wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 05:21:36PM -0400, John Hinton wrote: > > > > OK... I guess my old frustration with this is now vented. > > > > John --- >Wow! Look at all the Johns on the list... >